Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: skorpion on September 17, 2011, 08:25:23 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/
i guess its finally been proven, if your stupid, you should blame spongebob. :D
-
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/
i guess its finally been proven, if your stupid, you should blame spongebob. :D
or dora the explorer. :bhead
-
For some reason this came up while looking for something about spongebob :huh
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/10/seand.jpg)
-
For some reason this came up while looking for something about spongebob :huh
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/10/seand.jpg)
Telling from the sheep, that guy must be someone from AH :D
-
Here is all the proof I need.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Awkward.jpg)
-
soo Skorp..
watched a lot of sp.. :lol
nope can't do it :)
-
I wonder if a kid starts watching Youtube Poops. i can actually FEEL my IQ droping as i watch some well made YTP's
-
soo Skorp..
watched a lot of sp.. :lol
nope can't do it :)
:rofl
cmon dicho! i dare ya...:t
-
What kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results? This is a perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor. The study had a small and homogeneous sample size, and the test subjects were unlikely to encounter the stimulus in daily life. Furthermore, the subjects were not tested before exposure to the stimulus, which means that there is no baseline against which to judge them. There was also no testing of effects lasting longer than a few minutes, making it difficult if not impossible to take any long-term action on this data.
I can't find anything about Dr. Christakis on the web besides his involvement with this issue. No curriculum vitae* (CV), no prior works, only a passing mention on the first hit of a search for his curriculum vitae on the CV of another man, Dr. Zimmern, who has connection to neither science nor medicine**. This research, however, is central to his (possibly current, there is no indication of a previous) idea of there being "good" and "bad" stimuli during early language development. His interests are clearly vested in the success and publication of this study.
In conclusion, though this man is not a quack, his methodolgy is poor and his claims poorly substantiated. The study is inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. This will play out over a long period of time, and there is much testing left to be done (and hopefully in a more rigorous way). It is too early to judge whether he is right or not, but he has a good incentive to be right.
-Penguin
*The only information on his education are a medical doctorate and masters of public health. He is also a Professor of Pediatrics, and a research affiliate in the Center on Human Development and Disability
**Dr. Zimmern is an economist with the education of: University of Notre Dame. B.A. Economics 1985
University of Wisconsin, Madison. M.S. Economics 1989
University of Wisconsin. Ph.D. Economics 1994
-
lol don't worry that much penguin, people make stupid nonsense research to "prove" stuff like "First person shooter games makes your kids assassins!" and ruin pratens/children relationships :D
well i played FPS's since i was 10 and so far I only killed 4 people, come on its not like that makes me an assassin
-
well i played FPS's since i was 10 and so far I only killed 4 people, come on its not like that makes me an assassin
:rofl
-
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/
i guess its finally been proven, if your stupid, you should blame spongebob. :D
I'm thinking the ones who watch it originally had a lower IQ than those who don't. I doubt a show can actually make you stupider.
-
<snip>
Seriously? That was a pretty long diatribe of BS. ;)
Here you go - links for the two people cited in the article:
Dr. Dimitri Christakis: http://seattlechildrens.org/medical-staff/dimitri-a-christakis/
University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard: http://faculty.virginia.edu/early-social-cognition-lab/cv.html
-
This is just part of the long running, TV is bad for you thing. Well if it is then we're all damaged. My boys watch spongebob but they prefer Powerrangers. Much more violent. :bhead
-
Seriously? That was a pretty long diatribe of BS. ;)
Here you go - links for the two people cited in the article:
Dr. Dimitri Christakis: http://seattlechildrens.org/medical-staff/dimitri-a-christakis/
University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard: http://faculty.virginia.edu/early-social-cognition-lab/cv.html
Thanks for Lillard's CV, I had a bit of trouble finding it. However, she is very focused on the effects of fantasy on a child's brain, (e.g., how the brain maintains a pretense of fantasy whilst acting as if the fantasy were reality), and cultural conceptions of the mind. Besides her degree in psychology, she has no other bona fides to speak on the subject. This would make citing her as a source shaky, if not a fallacy (argument from authority).
As for Christakis, he appears to be the one responsible for the study. Therefore, why would such a respected psychologist* release such an inconclusive and shoddy study that even a highschooler could shoot down? He has some sort of ulterior motive, be it desperation or the belief that because he stamped "SCIENCE" on his ideas means that the world should believe him.
Face it, this study is baloney. I've done my research this time.
EDIT: The study's faults, as listed on the site:
Small sample size
Low sample diversity
No baseline test
No long-term testing
Other questions:
Was there a crossover test? (Were the kids exposed to both stimuli via two rounds of testing?)
Was there a placebo control? (Did the kids expect to do worse after watching a particular show?)
What TV did the kids watch previously?
Was the study double-blind?
This study is not useful. To analogize, if the test was between kids who ran a 5k and kids who sat in a chair for the same amount of time, the kids who sat in the chair would do better on a test if both were tested immediately afterward. However, it is well documented that running 5k races does not make one dumber.
-Penguin
-
....<snip>...<blah>....<blah>...<blah>
i don't know about the conclusions of the article but, all that blathering is proof the internet has had a retarding effect on some people. :rolleyes:
in typical fashion you completely failed to comprehend something that is easily understood by anyone who took the time to actually read the entire passage.
The cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is in hot water from a study suggesting that watching just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.
Previous research has linked TV-watching with long-term attention problems in children, but the new study suggests more immediate problems can occur after very little exposure - results that parents of young kids should be alert to, the study authors said.
The results should be interpreted cautiously because of the study's small size, but the data seem robust and bolster the idea that media exposure is a public health issue, said Dr. Dimitri Christakis.
University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard, the lead author, said Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob" shouldn't be singled out. She found similar problems in kids who watched other fast-paced cartoon programming.
The study has several limitations. For one thing, the kids weren't tested before they watched TV.
But Lillard said none of the children had diagnosed attention problems and all got similar scores on parent evaluations of their behavior.
that particular study used three control groups from the same socio-economic background and simply suggests children can be negatively affected by television programming in various way along the development path, which in this case is the age of four where certain "self control abilities" are developed. the article specifically states the study had limitations and like similar previous studies, the results should be interpreted cautiously. had you actually read the article in full to the point of comprehension, it is possible (though doubful) that you would not have wasted as much of your time spouting the amount of nonsense you posted.
-
I'll just say this much. At 5 yrs old Speed Racer was the cartoon as far as I was concerned. But after watching an episode I really didn't have the itch to put extending saw blades in the front bumper of the family wagon.
Nowadays at 42, saw blades in the front of my truck are looking a lil more do-able..... :devil
-
I'm not going to debate you on this, because it's obvious you're trying to argue a point and 'impress' readers at the same time.
But a few things:
<snip> Besides her degree in psychology, she has no other bona fides to speak on the subject. This would make citing her as a source shaky, if not a fallacy (argument from authority).
Her Ph.D in Psychology, along with her numerous publications, experience, and apparent status in the community would be the opposite of 'shaky' when citing her as a source. She could be considered an 'expert' based on her body of work. I don't know who she is, but I'm pointing out where you're incorrect.
As for Christakis, he appears to be the one responsible for the study. Therefore, why would such a respected psychologist* release such an inconclusive and shoddy study that even a highschooler could shoot down? He has some sort of ulterior motive, be it desperation or the belief that because he stamped "SCIENCE" on his ideas means that the world should believe him.
Searching his name through Google shows that this area IS what he has been researching for years.
Face it, this study is baloney. I've done my research this time.
EDIT: The study's faults, as listed on the site:
Small sample size
Low sample diversity
No baseline test
No long-term testing
Other questions:
Was there a crossover test? (Were the kids exposed to both stimuli via two rounds of testing?)
Was there a placebo control? (Did the kids expect to do worse after watching a particular show?)
What TV did the kids watch previously?
Was the study double-blind?
This study is not useful. To analogize, if the test was between kids who ran a 5k and kids who sat in a chair for the same amount of time, the kids who sat in the chair would do better on a test if both were tested immediately afterward. However, it is well documented that running 5k races does not make one dumber.
-Penguin
I'm not going to pick on you, because you're a kid in high school, but you're style and argument have a feel that you're rehashing the lectures you've been learning in an honors class.
Basically, you don't know everything that you're talking about. Yet.
-
i don't know about the conclusions of the article but, all that blathering is proof the internet has had a retarding effect on some people. :rolleyes:
in typical fashion you completely failed to comprehend something that is easily understood by anyone who took the time to actually read the entire passage.
that particular study used three control groups from the same socio-economic background and simply suggests children can be negatively affected by television programming in various way along the development path, which in this case is the age of four where certain "self control abilities" are developed. the article specifically states the study had limitations and like similar previous studies, the results should be interpreted cautiously. had you actually read the article in full to the point of comprehension, it is possible (though doubful) that you would not have wasted as much of your time spouting the amount of nonsense you posted.
Self contradiction and ad hominem. How can you both comprehend and not comprehend the conclusions of the article, while still managing to falsely accuse others of not understanding it?
Having homogeneous samples compromises the results in all fields of science. What they did is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in a clincal trial- the samples must be random and heterogeneous. If the results were to be read "cautiously", why would he publish them at all? Read between the lines. Why would a well respected psychologist release the inconclusive findings of a poorly conducted study?
I'm not going to debate you on this, because it's obvious you're trying to argue a point and 'impress' readers at the same time.
But a few things:
Her Ph.D in Psychology, along with her numerous publications, experience, and apparent status in the community would be the opposite of 'shaky' when citing her as a source. She could be considered an 'expert' based on her body of work. I don't know who she is, but I'm pointing out where you're incorrect.
Searching his name through Google shows that this area IS what he has been researching for years.
I'm not going to pick on you, because you're a kid in high school, but you're style and argument have a feel that you're rehashing the lectures you've been learning in an honors class.
Basically, you don't know everything that you're talking about. Yet.
Not going to debate, eh? It seems that you are (this is all in good fun, anyway).
Nope, everything in this debate came from my own head, hands, and research.
A PhD. in psychology does not equate to knowledge of all parts of psychology, and Lillard has clearly put her effort into studying how children maintain a pretense of fantasy while still acting one out to the fullest. I may be wrong on this, because the publications I found said 'pretense', 'pretence', and 'pretend'. I assume that it is the first, since the second is not a word and the third would be redundant in the description of works dealing with fantasy. Have you even read her list of publications?
If you'd like to, here it is: http://faculty.virginia.edu/early-social-cognition-lab/cv.html
Are we talking about the same person, here? Dr. Lillard is a woman. I comepletely agree that Dr. Christakis is well-qualified in the field of developmental psychology. That is exactly why I think that such a poorly conducted study would be unlike him. He is either ignorant to the requirements of rigor, or incompetent to the point that he cannot fulfill them.
-Penguin
-
Self contradiction and ad hominem. How can you both comprehend and not comprehend the conclusions of the article, while still managing to falsely accuse others of not understanding it?
Having homogeneous samples compromises the results in all fields of science. What they did is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in a clincal trial- the samples must be random and heterogeneous. If the results were to be read "cautiously", why would he publish them at all? Read between the lines. Why would a well respected psychologist release the inconclusive findings of a poorly conducted study?
i would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson, but i suppose in the interim you have again filled your head with a false sense of intellectual superiority. your erroneous use of the term "ad hominem" illustrates just how much your head has been filled. i committed no fallacy in rejecting your arguments based on any irrelevant fact about you.
fact: you did not fully read the entire article before jumping to a completely erroneous conclusion. an attribute you are known for. the article was written by a journalist, not the researchers themselves. and, the journalist clearly cautions the reader about the conclusions of the study.
fact: you have neither the experience, education nor credentials to question the research of anyone with so much as an associates degree. just because someone in your family or your buddies pats you on the head and gives you a cookie everytime you say something semi intelligent does not make you an expert in any field.
fact: you did not read the actual research document before jumping to the conclusion that the research was flawed. your opinion was based solely on a quick perusal of what you considered key points in the article written by a journalist.
fact: there have been many studies of various sizes since the introduction of television and they have all had similar conclusions from the researchers. it just so happens this particular research was conducted on three separate groups of children of the same age from similar socio economic backgrounds in controlled settings, exactly as it should have been.
A PhD. in psychology does not equate to knowledge of all parts of psychology, and Lillard has clearly put her effort into studying how children maintain a pretense of fantasy while still acting one out to the fullest.
unfortunately for you, that phd puts her eons ahead of you in the field of psychology, especially child psychology. that is not a fallacy rejection of your argument based on irrelevant facts about you, it is simply fact.
-
Wow........ Is everyone as impressed as I am??? :rolleyes:
Peng. when your next sailing trip?? soon I hope.
:salute
BTW: none of this is new they've been saying TV rots the mind since,well since TV came out.
-
Peng. when your next sailing trip?? soon I hope.
:salute
Was a nice run while it lasted :bhead
-
children maintain a pretense of fantasy while still acting one out to the fullest. I may be wrong
-Penguin
Nope ... looks like you have this one bang on
-
i would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson, but i suppose in the interim you have again filled your head with a false sense of intellectual superiority. your erroneous use of the term "ad hominem" illustrates just how much your head has been filled. i committed no fallacy in rejecting your arguments based on any irrelevant fact about you.
fact: you did not fully read the entire article before jumping to a completely erroneous conclusion. an attribute you are known for. the article was written by a journalist, not the researchers themselves. and, the journalist clearly cautions the reader about the conclusions of the study.
fact: you have neither the experience, education nor credentials to question the research of anyone with so much as an associates degree. just because someone in your family or your buddies pats you on the head and gives you a cookie everytime you say something semi intelligent does not make you an expert in any field.
fact: you did not read the actual research document before jumping to the conclusion that the research was flawed. your opinion was based solely on a quick perusal of what you considered key points in the article written by a journalist.
fact: there have been many studies of various sizes since the introduction of television and they have all had similar conclusions from the researchers. it just so happens this particular research was conducted on three separate groups of children of the same age from similar socio economic backgrounds in controlled settings, exactly as it should have been.
unfortunately for you, that phd puts her eons ahead of you in the field of psychology, especially child psychology. that is not a fallacy rejection of your argument based on irrelevant facts about you, it is simply fact.
Where did I attack those studies and their results? You have confused my criticism of the study conducted by Dr. Christakis and the criticism of its results and that of other studies. You have jumped to a conclusion that was unfortunately false. Furthermore, your statement that the similar socioeconomic backgrounds was a correct method is utterly false. The samples in a correctly executed clinical trial are randomized. These were not randomized, therefore the study is compromised. Also, you have still not answered my question about long-term testing.
The comment on my lack of education is psychology is pointless- I did not say that Lillard was right or wrong. I said that besides her degree in the field, she has little else to offer in this debate. Also, the principles of clinical testing can be known by anyone, be they psychologist, entomolgist, ichthyologist, botantist, or high school student. I was referring to how her endorsement of the claim is frivolous; there was no mention of any other opinion by any other psychologist. Her PhD. in psychology does not make her any more of an authority on the subject than any other PhD. With so many PhD.'s out there, it would be foolish to argue that Lillard's opinion is in any way representative of them all.
in typical fashion you completely failed to comprehend something that is easily understood by anyone who took the time to actually read the entire passage.
How is this not a dismissal of my point based on the flawed assumption that I did not read the article because I am somehow intellectually inferior?
Where is my claim of intellectual superiority? If anything, you have made one:
I would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson
Thus far, you have falsely accused me of:
- Claiming knowledge of psychology when I have not done anything more than pointed out the holes in a study, which is something that anyone could do
- Not comprehending written information while completely misunderstanding my clearly worded point.
- Making a claim of intellectual superiority while simultaneously making such a claim yourself.
Not only that, but you have dodged many of my questions as well:
- What long-term effects were there?
- Why were the groups not random?
- Why would a well respected psychologist release such a flawed study?
Finally, using your insults and my young age you have cleverly constructed a strawman argument in which I am somehow incapable of understanding why small*, homogeneous** samples tested without a baseline***against which to judge them would compromise a scholarly study.
-Penguin
*With only sixty kids, one wildcard result can make an even split a statstically significant finding.
**Homogeneous samples make the study too specific, and leave those who did not fit the description without any ground to take action.
***With no baseline, the possibility that all the kids in both groups acted the way they did all the time.
EDIT: Spelling error
EDIT: I don't appreciate the insults.
-
What kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results? This is a perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor. The study had a small and homogeneous sample size, and the test subjects were unlikely to encounter the stimulus in daily life. Furthermore, the subjects were not tested before exposure to the stimulus, which means that there is no baseline against which to judge them. There was also no testing of effects lasting longer than a few minutes, making it difficult if not impossible to take any long-term action on this data.
I can't find anything about Dr. Christakis on the web besides his involvement with this issue. No curriculum vitae* (CV), no prior works, only a passing mention on the first hit of a search for his curriculum vitae on the CV of another man, Dr. Zimmern, who has connection to neither science nor medicine**. This research, however, is central to his (possibly current, there is no indication of a previous) idea of there being "good" and "bad" stimuli during early language development. His interests are clearly vested in the success and publication of this study.
In conclusion, though this man is not a quack, his methodolgy is poor and his claims poorly substantiated. The study is inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. This will play out over a long period of time, and there is much testing left to be done (and hopefully in a more rigorous way). It is too early to judge whether he is right or not, but he has a good incentive to be right.
-Penguin
*The only information on his education are a medical doctorate and masters of public health. He is also a Professor of Pediatrics, and a research affiliate in the Center on Human Development and Disability
**Dr. Zimmern is an economist with the education of: University of Notre Dame. B.A. Economics 1985
University of Wisconsin, Madison. M.S. Economics 1989
University of Wisconsin. Ph.D. Economics 1994
I can't find anything about you on the internet and you aren't a professor or even have a high school diploma why should I listen to you?
-
...EDIT: I don't appreciate the insults.
And yet you feel obligated to insult the knowledge of these researchers?
-
Small studies like this are done constantly. Every once in a while a news organization catches something they think is interesting and writes a story on it. The problem usually comes when a journalism major is interpreting a psychology or science major's work. Usually there are 99 articles simply copied off another articles information. The researcher in question was just doing a small study that mimics many other previous research studies. This was not her/his life's work, this was not meant to be any big news, the media made a big deal out of nothing.
And although Penguin's points are mostly valid in his post, he continuously tries to portray himself as an intellectual far beyond his years. Unfortunately for him, the intelligence he does posses often comes off as condescending and elitist.
-
I've promised myself that I wouldn't get flammed by Skuzzy for politic'n until Christmas....
Gotta bite my tongue on this one!
Boo
-
Small studies like this are done constantly. Every once in a while a news organization catches something they think is interesting and writes a story on it. The problem usually comes when a journalism major is interpreting a psychology or science major's work. Usually there are 99 articles simply copied off another articles information. The researcher in question was just doing a small study that mimics many other previous research studies. This was not her/his life's work, this was not meant to be any big news, the media made a big deal out of nothing.
And although Penguin's points are mostly valid in his post, he continuously tries to portray himself as an intellectual far beyond his years. Unfortunately for him, the intelligence he does posses often comes off as condescending and elitist.
That was a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind- that a journalist mistook a small-time study that the scientists thereof didn't keep quiet enough about and made it into a big hoopla. On condescencion: if you refer to my use of words such as therefore, furthermore, etc., I wouldn't use them lest you think me stupid. Is there a happy medium?
-Penguin
-
Damn Penguin, that is the most I have ever heard come out of a pilots mouth, or typed, by a pilot that had no references to naked girls, climb rate, RPM, or beer and whiskey.
:bolt:
-
Where did I attack those studies and their results? You have confused my criticism of the study conducted by Dr. Christakis and the criticism of its results and that of other studies. You have jumped to a conclusion that was unfortunately false.
aaaannnd it's on... :lol school is in session. watch carefully now, it's not slight of hand nor quantum science.
What kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results?
This is a perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor.
In conclusion, though this man is not a quack, his methodolgy is poor and his claims poorly substantiated.
false, wrong, nonsense...on what basis do you make such claims? again, you did not actually read the published study from the op.
here are a few to read with similar conclusions. (i know you won't actually read them and even if you did, there would be a lack of comprehension about the methodology) <---insult intended
first study article up, dr. dimitri christakis et al on the effects of television on 1 to 3 year olds...
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/4/708.full (http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/4/708.full)
obviously the article in the op was not his first rodeo...
other published studies
http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/5sanders.pdf (http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/5sanders.pdf)
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/9/910 (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/9/910)
http://umaine.edu/publications/4100e/ (http://umaine.edu/publications/4100e/)
i guess they didn't realize you are a much more learned scientist... :rolleyes:
Furthermore, your statement that the similar socioeconomic backgrounds was a correct method is utterly false. The samples in a correctly executed clinical trial are randomized. These were not randomized, therefore the study is compromised. Also, you have still not answered my question about long-term testing.
so according to you, to conduct a proper study of how television affects child behavioral development there must be a mix of control groups regardless of how it would affect the results of the study by intermingling children of divergent socio economic backgrounds. the researchers obviously used carefully screened "middle class" children because that socio economic class of people tends to make up the largest percentage of the countries population and they have the greatest tendency for exposure to the television program in question than higher and lower income households. if the study had a different focus, then yes, more randomized focus groups would have been called for. as it sits, psychological research has to be more focused than studies such as environment or public opinion.
The comment on my lack of education is psychology is pointless- I did not say that Lillard was right or wrong. I said that besides her degree in the field, she has little else to offer in this debate. Also, the principles of clinical testing can be known by anyone, be they psychologist, entomolgist, ichthyologist, botantist, or high school student. I was referring to how her endorsement of the claim is frivolous; there was no mention of any other opinion by any other psychologist. Her PhD. in psychology does not make her any more of an authority on the subject than any other PhD. With so many PhD.'s out there, it would be foolish to argue that Lillard's opinion is in any way representative of them all.
my comment on your lack of education is not based on opinion as it is provable fact. whereas, you're negative comments on the veracity of dr's lillard and christakis credentials are based on sheer uneducated opinion. dr. lillard has very obviously been involved with a large number of child behavioral psychology studies, therefore in this case her "endorsement" of the study in question is very much within her realm of expertise, regardless of whether you understand the studies or not. please explain how the opinion of a phd professor in quantum physics would carry as much weight on an article about child psychology as that of a phd professor in psychology? that is your assertion is it not? you appear to not understand the difference between "clinical testing" and "clinical study", the research in question is not testing children for a disease or abnormality, it is studying the behavioral effects of exposure to a particular type of television programming.
Where is my claim of intellectual superiority?
ok, am i to assume you do not view such language as a proclamation of your superior knowledge and expertise?
What kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results?
This is a perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor.
In conclusion, though this man is not a quack, his methodolgy is poor and his claims poorly substantiated.
Therefore, why would such a respected psychologist* release such an inconclusive and shoddy study that even a highschooler could shoot down?
Face it, this study is baloney. I've done my research this time.
Thus far, you have falsely accused me of:
- Claiming knowledge of psychology when I have not done anything more than pointed out the holes in a study, which is something that anyone could do
- Not comprehending written information while completely misunderstanding my clearly worded point.
- Making a claim of intellectual superiority while simultaneously making such a claim yourself.
quite the contrary, i have not made any false claims or accusations against you. everything i have said is very obvious to anyone who has bothered to read your nonsense.
Not only that, but you have dodged many of my questions as well:
- What long-term effects were there?
- Why were the groups not random?
- Why would a well respected psychologist release such a flawed study?
you never asked me any such questions. but i will attempt to answer if you like. there was no argument toward long term effects as the article clearly states "short term", however other such studies have come to similar conclusions based on similar study methods. the groups were random, they were not from the same geographical location, nor where they related. in order to rule out certain factors typically found in low income and high income households, children from the middle class were chosen due to their demographics. for one, they are more likely to be exposed to certain types of television programming than low income or high income children, which was the reason for the study. since the middle class makes up the largest portion of the u.s. economic group, they are typically used as the "average" or "median" study group. the baseline was established by choosing a socio economic group with the highest numbers within the overall population and the highest possibility of continued exposure to varied television programming. the study is not flawed, regardless of what you believe. at most it could be considered incomplete since the possibility of having prolonged access to the focus group of children is not likely.
if you do not like being insulted, do not pretend to know something you do not. i seriously would have thought you learned that lesson the last time you attempted to assert your genius only to have it exposed as a lack of knowledge.
-
oh my, this is VERY entertaining to watch.
who knew spongebob could make such an argument... :uhoh
-
aaaannnd it's on... :lol school is in session. watch carefully now, it's not slight of hand nor quantum science.
false, wrong, nonsense...on what basis do you make such claims? again, you did not actually read the published study from the op.
here are a few to read with similar conclusions. (i know you won't actually read them and even if you did, there would be a lack of comprehension about the methodology) <---insult intended
first study article up, dr. dimitri christakis et al on the effects of television on 1 to 3 year olds...
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/4/708.full (http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/4/708.full)
obviously the article in the op was not his first rodeo...
other published studies
http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/5sanders.pdf (http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/5sanders.pdf)
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/9/910 (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/9/910)
http://umaine.edu/publications/4100e/ (http://umaine.edu/publications/4100e/)
i guess they didn't realize you are a much more learned scientist... :rolleyes:
so according to you, to conduct a proper study of how television affects child behavioral development there must be a mix of control groups regardless of how it would affect the results of the study by intermingling children of divergent socio economic backgrounds. the researchers obviously used carefully screened "middle class" children because that socio economic class of people tends to make up the largest percentage of the countries population and they have the greatest tendency for exposure to the television program in question than higher and lower income households. if the study had a different focus, then yes, more randomized focus groups would have been called for. as it sits, psychological research has to be more focused than studies such as environment or public opinion.
my comment on your lack of education is not based on opinion as it is provable fact. whereas, you're negative comments on the veracity of dr's lillard and christakis credentials are based on sheer uneducated opinion. dr. lillard has very obviously been involved with a large number of child behavioral psychology studies, therefore in this case her "endorsement" of the study in question is very much within her realm of expertise, regardless of whether you understand the studies or not. please explain how the opinion of a phd professor in quantum physics would carry as much weight on an article about child psychology as that of a phd professor in psychology? that is your assertion is it not? you appear to not understand the difference between "clinical testing" and "clinical study", the research in question is not testing children for a disease or abnormality, it is studying the behavioral effects of exposure to a particular type of television programming.
ok, am i to assume you do not view such language as a proclamation of your superior knowledge and expertise?
quite the contrary, i have not made any false claims or accusations against you. everything i have said is very obvious to anyone who has bothered to read your nonsense.
you never asked me any such questions. but i will attempt to answer if you like. there was no argument toward long term effects as the article clearly states "short term", however other such studies have come to similar conclusions based on similar study methods. the groups were random, they were not from the same geographical location, nor where they related. in order to rule out certain factors typically found in low income and high income households, children from the middle class were chosen due to their demographics. for one, they are more likely to be exposed to certain types of television programming than low income or high income children, which was the reason for the study. since the middle class makes up the largest portion of the u.s. economic group, they are typically used as the "average" or "median" study group. the baseline was established by choosing a socio economic group with the highest numbers within the overall population and the highest possibility of continued exposure to varied television programming. the study is not flawed, regardless of what you believe. at most it could be considered incomplete since the possibility of having prolonged access to the focus group of children is not likely.
if you do not like being insulted, do not pretend to know something you do not. i seriously would have thought you learned that lesson the last time you attempted to assert your genius only to have it exposed as a lack of knowledge.
I'd like to make some things clear:
I have read and understood the study. If you won't believe me, to you, I may as well be a dog who can type.
I have not made any claims regarding whether the results were true or not.
My only point is that it was not correctly conducted.
To continue, those links were quite interesting, and I will read them more thoroughly tomorrow because it is late and I have to wake up early for school. I cannot make a comment on them at this time. However, these studies have no place in this matter- I did not make an assertion as to their truth value. I have no expertise in that area. So please, stop parading that strawman around.
According to me? Are you kidding? That question is more loaded than Bill Gates. The randomization of samples is a key part of any study. In this case, the four year olds were unlikely to watch Spongebob anyway (I certainly don't remember watching anything besides Looney Tunes, Megaman, and Metabots back then, and that's only if I weren't completely out of ideas for playing pretend.). How would poor children be unlikely to watch Spongebob? Why would the rich not watch it? Those claims have no substantiation. As for the middle class being average, do you refer to the statistical middle class, or the professional class? They are anything but similar. However, I digress. As for non-random samples being necessary for psychology, that is only true up until a point (e.g., studies of children require children, but not just white children). This study has gone far beyond that point, its sample was almost all white and middle to upper class.
In brief, an ideal clinical trial is randomized and double blind. The samples were not randomized, therefore the study is flawed. [1]
[1]Page three, fourth paragraph: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pIx-0LvD6agC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=ideal+clinical+trial&ots=LeGa9TPPaW&sig=jGJgq_RqN0DeDMsyyd-rIvIWZbs#v=onepage&q=ideal%20clinical%20trial&f=false
Moving forward, clincal testing is part of a larger clinical study. The article referred to a clincal study. Again, you're dodging the point. However, I must cede on the PhD. debacle. I worded that horribly, if you'd allow me to rephrase (though this will sound redundant).
The fact that she has a PhD. in psychology does not make her any more of an authority on the subject than anyone else who has a PhD in psychology.
My bad, I tried to make it sound nicer and butchered the actual message. :)
As for the false claims and accusations, here are some quotes:
Your claim of intellectual superiority: i would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson,
Your failure to comprehend my claim, along with the accompanying strawman and the claim that I understand psychology: here are a few to read with similar conclusions. (i know you won't actually read them and even if you did, there would be a lack of comprehension about the methodology) <---insult intended
first study article up, dr. dimitri christakis et al on the effects of television on 1 to 3 year olds...
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/4/708.full
obviously the article in the op was not his first rodeo...
other published studies
http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/5sanders.pdf
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/9/910
http://umaine.edu/publications/4100e/
i guess they didn't realize you are a much more learned scientist...
The opening was harsh, as it should have been. The study was incomplete at best and fatally flawed at worst. If he didn't want to publicize it, he didn't have to. You still haven't answered the most important question:
Why would such a respected psychologist publicize a study that required so much more work to be conclusive?
-Penguin
-
guys just relax and watch sponge bob.
-
guys just relax and watch sponge bob.
Ah, but is it good for us?
-Penguin
-
I'd like to make some things clear:
I have read and understood the study. If you won't believe me, to you, I may as well be a dog who can type.
I have not made any claims regarding whether the results were true or not.
My only point is that it was not correctly conducted.
i know i shouldn't do this so damn early in the morning but...i'm up and the coffee is flowing.
just to get your thoughts on track properly, i say again, you obviously did not read the published study, nor did you thoroughly read the news article or look up other articles of the same study. the reason i know this is, your continued responses are clearly reactionary toward the title of the original post, not based on the contents of the news article and absolutely not based on reading the actual published study. nowhere does the news article show that dr. lillards published research makes the claim that spongbob makes kids stupid. you directed your first response toward dr. christakis the pediatrician, whose only involvement was to write a commentary on the actual study, otherwise he was not involved. and you continue to refer to dr. christakis as the person who published the study. that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read all of your responses, including those i quote here. you are literally chasing squirrels in an effort to be right and you are failing.
throughout all of your resonses you have repeatedly focused on what you believe to be proper research methodology, with no basis of fact to back your claim. also based on your repetitive responses i charge that you do not know what a clinical trial actual entails, as it does not pertain to dr. lillards study. the title of the article and the objective statement in the article plainly state the study was intended to measure "The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children's Executive Function". the objective statement:
The goal of this research was to study whether a fast-paced television show immediately influences preschool-aged children’s executive function (eg, self-regulation, working memory).
WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Previous study results have suggested a longitudinal association between entertainment television and later attention problems.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Using a controlled experimental design, this study found that preschool-aged children were significantly impaired in executive function immediately after watching just 9 minutes of a popular fast-paced television show relative to after watching educational television or drawing.
now, had you actually read the entire published research document as i have, taking your claim to above average intelligence into consideration, you should not have made the same repetitive mistakes in questioning not only the research but the researchers, their credentials and their methodology. i'll let you find the actual published study since giving you the link would be too easy.
To continue, those links were quite interesting, and I will read them more thoroughly tomorrow because it is late and I have to wake up early for school. I cannot make a comment on them at this time. However, these studies have no place in this matter- I did not make an assertion as to their truth value. I have no expertise in that area. So please, stop parading that strawman around.
there is no strawman. contrary to your belief, those other articles have as much bearing on this discussion as any and all such studies are similar. questioning the validity of findings from one study out of many similar studies, questions them all. in your own words, you have no expertise, yet you continue to question not only the work but the individuals who do have the expertise based on some less than fully educated notions of how research should be conducted.
According to me? Are you kidding? That question is more loaded than Bill Gates. The randomization of samples is a key part of any study. In this case, the four year olds were unlikely to watch Spongebob anyway (I certainly don't remember watching anything besides Looney Tunes, Megaman, and Metabots back then, and that's only if I weren't completely out of ideas for playing pretend.). How would poor children be unlikely to watch Spongebob? Why would the rich not watch it? Those claims have no substantiation. As for the middle class being average, do you refer to the statistical middle class, or the professional class? They are anything but similar. However, I digress. As for non-random samples being necessary for psychology, that is only true up until a point (e.g., studies of children require children, but not just white children). This study has gone far beyond that point, its sample was almost all white and middle to upper class.
In brief, an ideal clinical trial is randomized and double blind. The samples were not randomized, therefore the study is flawed. [1]
[1]Page three, fourth paragraph: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pIx-0LvD6agC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=ideal+clinical+trial&ots=LeGa9TPPaW&sig=jGJgq_RqN0DeDMsyyd-rIvIWZbs#v=onepage&q=ideal%20clinical%20trial&f=false
Moving forward, clincal testing is part of a larger clinical study. The article referred to a clincal study. Again, you're dodging the point. However, I must cede on the PhD. debacle. I worded that horribly, if you'd allow me to rephrase (though this will sound redundant).
The fact that she has a PhD. in psychology does not make her any more of an authority on the subject than anyone else who has a PhD in psychology.
My bad, I tried to make it sound nicer and butchered the actual message. :)
As for the false claims and accusations, here are some quotes:
Your claim of intellectual superiority: Your failure to comprehend my claim, along with the accompanying strawman and the claim that I understand psychology:
The opening was harsh, as it should have been. The study was incomplete at best and fatally flawed at worst. If he didn't want to publicize it, he didn't have to. You still haven't answered the most important question:
Why would such a respected psychologist publicize a study that required so much more work to be conclusive?
-Penguin
i'm not even going to bother readdressing the redundancy you continue to pursue. suffice to say, again, if you had actually read the news article as well as others based on the same published research document, and the actual published research document you would see that the research and the conclusions are sound. you should also actually read that book you linked, it clearly defines what a clinical trial entails and the research published by dr. lillard was not a clinical trial.
-
You guys sure do put in a lot of effort to win the argument.
-
You guys sure do put in a lot of effort to win the argument.
:lol it's all in fun grizz. all in fun. :aok
penguin can be tenacious in his viewpoint and i'm willing to bet by the time he reaches college, he'll be tough to debate with.
-
there in it to win it...
You guys sure do put in a lot of effort to win the argument.
-
i know i shouldn't do this so damn early in the morning but...i'm up and the coffee is flowing.
just to get your thoughts on track properly, i say again, you obviously did not read the published study, nor did you thoroughly read the news article or look up other articles of the same study. the reason i know this is, your continued responses are clearly reactionary toward the title of the original post, not based on the contents of the news article and absolutely not based on reading the actual published study. nowhere does the news article show that dr. lillards published research makes the claim that spongbob makes kids stupid. you directed your first response toward dr. christakis the pediatrician, whose only involvement was to write a commentary on the actual study, otherwise he was not involved. and you continue to refer to dr. christakis as the person who published the study. that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read all of your responses, including those i quote here. you are literally chasing squirrels in an effort to be right and you are failing.
throughout all of your resonses you have repeatedly focused on what you believe to be proper research methodology, with no basis of fact to back your claim. also based on your repetitive responses i charge that you do not know what a clinical trial actual entails, as it does not pertain to dr. lillards study. the title of the article and the objective statement in the article plainly state the study was intended to measure "The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children's Executive Function". the objective statement:
now, had you actually read the entire published research document as i have, taking your claim to above average intelligence into consideration, you should not have made the same repetitive mistakes in questioning not only the research but the researchers, their credentials and their methodology. i'll let you find the actual published study since giving you the link would be too easy.
there is no strawman. contrary to your belief, those other articles have as much bearing on this discussion as any and all such studies are similar. questioning the validity of findings from one study out of many similar studies, questions them all. in your own words, you have no expertise, yet you continue to question not only the work but the individuals who do have the expertise based on some less than fully educated notions of how research should be conducted.
i'm not even going to bother readdressing the redundancy you continue to pursue. suffice to say, again, if you had actually read the news article as well as others based on the same published research document, and the actual published research document you would see that the research and the conclusions are sound. you should also actually read that book you linked, it clearly defines what a clinical trial entails and the research published by dr. lillard was not a clinical trial.
To begin, I will reply to the links you gave me, I read them, just like I promised.
The link to the first study is well-substantiated. It is nothing like the abomination described in the news article. If this is the article that you'd rather not give me a link to, I think I've been scared of a monster that was never under my bed to begin with. However, the study mentions this interesting tidbit:
Third, we cannot draw causal inferences from these associations. It could be that attentional problems lead to television viewing rather than vice versa.
It also mentions problems with adjusting for emotional support and household environment. This quote sums that up nicely:
For example, parents who were distracted, neglectful, or otherwise preoccupied might have allowed their children to watch excessive amounts of television in addition to having created a household environment that promoted the development of attentional problems. Although we adjusted for a number of potential confounders, including home environment, maternal depression, cognitive stimulation, and emotional support, our adjustment may have been imperfect.
To conclude, it needs further replication, but could be a good start to a new wave of knowledge.
The second is a red herring, it has nothing to do with TV making kids dumber- it points out that a TV show can act as a conduit for public health information, especially TV about interventions.
The third is an interesting piece, and highlights some details such as violence and anti-social behavior as a result of TV viewing. The former hits home, when I was seven, my two-year-old brother and I would reenact scenes from Power Rangers. I feel awful about it now, he always thinks I want to hurt him or lie to him. :( However, I don't know if TV caused me to do it, because there was plenty of dumb stuff that we'd do that was in no way related to Power Rangers. It doesn't make it right, though.
Moving on, your criticism of my skepticism is odd. Skepticism of new findings is normal, and should be resolved by researching the matter and using your own knowledge and sense. Do you then agree with their findings? If so, what credentials do you have?
My assumption that it was a clincal study was flawed and unreasonable. I cede that point. I now know that there are many types of studies, not just clinical ones. Oof.
-Penguin
-
I outgrew spongebob about a 8 months ago, I still watch it when my sister or bro is watching it, but I don't watch it by myself
-
Dont know what the fuss is about, its funnier then hell sometimes. But then again kids these days are quick to be considered ADD or ADHD.
Guess cutting sugar and caffene out of their daily diets is unheard of now :rolleyes:
-
Refuse to read 3+ pages of "Oh, yeah?" ..."Yeah!"
But as someone who diagnoses and treats ADD pretty routinely, and tries to keep up with the literature -
These studies all suffer from the almost insoluble problem of separating CORRELATION from CAUSATION.
(For example, it is a FACT that the more telephone poles per capita a developing country has, the more heart disease they have. That's a correlation, a measure of how much two things track together. BUT - heart disease is not CAUSED by telephone poles; there is a third factor, the "westernization" of lifestyle that ties the two together. Poor countries get by on low calories of food like rice, but once they get wealthy they get both telephone infrastructure and larger quantities of higher fat food.)
This correlation vs causation distinction is absolutely critical, but also beyond the comprehension of every news outlet I've come across.
Bottom line: in real world studies, you can't tell whether the distractability comes first (so the kids love the flashing lights and stimulation of TV) or whether the TV exposure comes first, causing the distractibility. You just can't do those studies, because you can't isolate the kids and control their inputs for 5+ years. You have to watch what happens in various groups, because you can't control the experimental variable (TV watching).
-
Dont know what the fuss is about, its funnier then hell sometimes. But then again kids these days are quick to be considered ADD or ADHD.
Guess cutting sugar and caffene out of their daily diets is unheard of now :rolleyes:
I agree that ADD is diagnosed Waaayyyy too much...and much of the time the real problem is what we call "the other A.D.D. - "Absent Discipline Disorder."
Interestingly, though, studies have pretty much conclusively shown that sugar intake does not trigger increased distractability. When kids given placebo drinks/foods they do not show any less hyperness than the other kids in a study given the real sugary stuff.
-
Refuse to read 3+ pages of "Oh, yeah?" ..."Yeah!"
But as someone who diagnoses and treats ADD pretty routinely, and tries to keep up with the literature -
These studies all suffer from the almost insoluble problem of separating CORRELATION from CAUSATION.
(For example, it is a FACT that the more telephone poles per capita a developing country has, the more heart disease they have. That's a correlation, a measure of how much two things track together. BUT - heart disease is not CAUSED by telephone poles; there is a third factor, the "westernization" of lifestyle that ties the two together. Poor countries get by on low calories of food like rice, but once they get wealthy they get both telephone infrastructure and larger quantities of higher fat food.)
This correlation vs causation distinction is absolutely critical, but also beyond the comprehension of every news outlet I've come across.
Bottom line: in real world studies, you can't tell whether the distractability comes first (so the kids love the flashing lights and stimulation of TV) or whether the TV exposure comes first, causing the distractibility. You just can't do those studies, because you can't isolate the kids and control their inputs for 5+ years. You have to watch what happens in various groups, because you can't control the experimental variable (TV watching).
Not to mention the media has been having a field day taking it out of context (with a capital "C"). This study I found had absolutley nothing new or relevant in it to my surprise (for being a "groundbreaking" study rather than a general run of hte mill study). As I read and understood it, the study was trying to pitch that watching high-energy/paced shows like IE: Spongebob (the media seems to heavily favor the "IE: Spongebob" more than anything else in the study) kinda drained those kids energy/mental-fotitude. Kind of like if you ran a mile before then imediatley taking your physics semi-final - you're going ot do better on your physics test if you relax and listen to some Mozart. If you sit your kids down to watch something relaxing but also stimulating, like say Blues Clues (which I was SHOCKED the media was parading around in a bright light - we all know about that show's host and his *sniff* *sniff* history of riding the white pony).
@ most the rest of this thread: you guys need to stop eating out of the media's hand and also stop trying to show the world how smart you are because of it. Childrens phsycology -vs- childrens entertainment is an argument older than Denis the Menace.
So, who's the repeating agressor in that situation - Denis or Mr. Wilson? And, go!... *popcorn*
-
To begin, I will reply to the links you gave me, I read them, just like I promised.
The link to the first study is well-substantiated. It is nothing like the abomination described in the news article. If this is the article that you'd rather not give me a link to, I think I've been scared of a monster that was never under my bed to begin with. However, the study mentions this interesting tidbit:
It also mentions problems with adjusting for emotional support and household environment. This quote sums that up nicely:
To conclude, it needs further replication, but could be a good start to a new wave of knowledge.
:rofl no that first article is not the study in question, how you could not see that has me dumbfounded. the authors of the study were right under the title of the study and not one of them was dr. lillard, nor did the title match what i quoted in my last response. all the information you need to find the published study by dr. lillard has been provided. i am also curious as to what evidence you could possess that shows the study in the original post is an "abomination". again i ask, what do you base your judgement on? the nature of your responses and continued focus on everything but the actual study are more evidence of what i accused you of in the buffalo debate, selective reading.
The second is a red herring, it has nothing to do with TV making kids dumber- it points out that a TV show can act as a conduit for public health information, especially TV about interventions.
The third is an interesting piece, and highlights some details such as violence and anti-social behavior as a result of TV viewing. <snip>
the study in question has no more to do with making kids dumber than any of the studies i linked. i believe you are still reacting to the title of the original post, and the title of the news article, not the findings of the actual study, nor even the contents of the news article sensationalized as it is.
this one isn't so sensationalized:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/is-spongebob-squarepants-bad-for-children/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/is-spongebob-squarepants-bad-for-children/)
this one has a sensationalized title but there is good information regarding previous studies:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/sep/19/spongebob-in-hot-water/ (http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/sep/19/spongebob-in-hot-water/)
they are both about the same study as the one from the original post.
since i know that for whatever reason you're not going to acknowledge it, and without giving you the link to the actual study, the second story contains this information:
Previous research has linked TV watching with long-term attention problems in children, but the new study suggests more immediate problems can occur after very little exposure, results that parents of young kids should be alert to, the study authors said.
Kids' cartoon shows typically feature about 22 minutes of action, so watching a full program "could be more detrimental," the researchers speculated, but they said more evidence is needed to confirm that.
University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard, the lead author of the study, said Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob" shouldn't be singled out. She found similar problems in kids who watched other fast-paced cartoon programming.
Moving on, your criticism of my skepticism is odd. Skepticism of new findings is normal, and should be resolved by researching the matter and using your own knowledge and sense. Do you then agree with their findings? If so, what credentials do you have?
-Penguin
i believe i have already shown repeatedly my reasoning for criticizing your skepticism. you really need to re-examine all of your responses in this discussion. you went from criticizing an m.d. who had nothing to do with the research study to criticizing the author of the research study, then claimed the author who holds a phd in psychology is not an expert. having actually read the published study and after learning what the term "executive function" means; though my knowledge of psychology is limited i do agree with what the study shows, as the title of the study states "immediate impact of different types of television on young childrens executive function". but not as a preposterous notion that children get stupid by watching spongebob nor would i consider it applicable to all children regardless of demographics. numerous studies over the years have shown some correlation between certain areas of child developmental behavior and the types of television programming they are exposed to.
information on "executive function"...
http://www.ncld.org/ld-basics/ld-aamp-executive-functioning/basic-ef-facts/what-is-executive-function (http://www.ncld.org/ld-basics/ld-aamp-executive-functioning/basic-ef-facts/what-is-executive-function)
you now have all the information necessary to find and read the actual published research document mentioned in the original post as well as the other news articles i linked. hopefully that will lead you to an educated opinion based on fact rather than the wild knee jerk opinions based on the title of the original post that you seem so hell bent on.
-
Oh good grief. I neither agreed nor disagreed with the study in question, nor any other study that has come to light in this discussion.
My original argument was that the study was not substantial enough to warrant such a sensational title. I also questioned why whoever was in charge (mistakenly referred to Dr. Christakis) would release such a study with such sensational title. During this debate, though I have made a few grammatical errors, these two points have been my only points. You have brought up every single other point.
You asked for substantiation, here you are:
My point as to whether the head scientist's methods were good enough: her methodolgy is poor and her claims poorly substantiated
(Changed his to her because the Lillard is a woman)
My acknowledgement of the inconclusivity of the study, and my attack on its misleading title and presentationThe study is inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. This will play out over a long period of time, and there is much testing left to be done (and hopefully in a more rigorous way). It is too early to judge whether he is right or not, but he has a good incentive to be right.
Why am I not attacking the truth value of the study? Because I don't know whether it is true or not- I am not yet educated to the point that I can make such a statement, though you seem bent on saying that I have claimed to be thus educated. However, I can make a statement about the study as described in the article. The 'Abomination' I referenced was as follows:
Having 60 non-diverse kids, who are not part of the show's targeted (audience), watch nine minutes of programming is questionable methodology and could not possibly provide the basis for any valid findings that parents could trust
The title was sensationalized, and implied that fast-paced programming permanantly hampered children. What the study actually found would only matter if its findings were conclusive to that end, which they were not, The results should be interpreted cautiously because of the study's small size
. EDIT: The study was not enough evidence to support such bold claims.
Anecdotally, I watched enough violent, fast-paced TV to last a lifetime when I was very young, and look at me now- I get my kicks by arguing with people on the internet (and only one butt cheek is bruised, WOOT!).
By the way, I think Simaril make a very interesting point about the fallacy of arguing that correlation implies causation, and how the increased television viewing may be the result of the attention problems, and not the other way around. Read it below:
Refuse to read 3+ pages of "Oh, yeah?" ..."Yeah!"
But as someone who diagnoses and treats ADD pretty routinely, and tries to keep up with the literature -
These studies all suffer from the almost insoluble problem of separating CORRELATION from CAUSATION.
(For example, it is a FACT that the more telephone poles per capita a developing country has, the more heart disease they have. That's a correlation, a measure of how much two things track together. BUT - heart disease is not CAUSED by telephone poles; there is a third factor, the "westernization" of lifestyle that ties the two together. Poor countries get by on low calories of food like rice, but once they get wealthy they get both telephone infrastructure and larger quantities of higher fat food.)
This correlation vs causation distinction is absolutely critical, but also beyond the comprehension of every news outlet I've come across.
Bottom line: in real world studies, you can't tell whether the distractability comes first (so the kids love the flashing lights and stimulation of TV) or whether the TV exposure comes first, causing the distractibility. You just can't do those studies, because you can't isolate the kids and control their inputs for 5+ years. You have to watch what happens in various groups, because you can't control the experimental variable (TV watching).
To conclude, you missed my point entirely, and now complain that I restate it.
-Penguin
-
oh snap!
-
Oh good grief. I neither agreed nor disagreed with the study in question, nor any other study that has come to light in this discussion.
My original argument was that the study was not substantial enough to warrant such a sensational title. I also questioned why whoever was in charge (mistakenly referred to Dr. Christakis) would release such a study with such sensational title. During this debate, though I have made a few grammatical errors, these two points have been my only points. You have brought up every single other point.
:lol not only have you still not read the actual published study but you are now attempting to deny your own words. you attack the study and it's authors repeatedly, yet you claim not to agree or disagree with the conclusions of the study. i can't even imagine how that works. obviously you didn't actually read my last response or the other news articles either, but you did key in on a word that i used (i.e. sensationalized). the study does not have a sensational title, nor does it make a sensational claim, never did. you associated the title that the original poster used and the title of the original news article with what you believed to be the claims made by the study, then based your entire debate solely on that and the erroneous notion that it was a flawed clinical trial. your entire argument has been guided not by facts or actual knowledge but by your knee jerk reaction to what you view as a preposterous notion.
You asked for substantiation, here you are:
My point as to whether the head scientist's methods were good enough: (Changed his to her because the Lillard is a woman)
My acknowledgement of the inconclusivity of the study, and my attack on its misleading title and presentation
Why am I not attacking the truth value of the study? Because I don't know whether it is true or not- I am not yet educated to the point that I can make such a statement, though you seem bent on saying that I have claimed to be thus educated. However, I can make a statement about the study as described in the article. The 'Abomination' I referenced was as follows:
The title was sensationalized, and implied that fast-paced programming permanantly hampered children. What the study said would only matter if its findings were conclusive to that end, which they were not,
Anecdotally, I watched enough violent, fast-paced TV to last a lifetime when I was very young, and look at me now- I get my kicks by arguing with people on the internet (and only one butt cheek is bruised, WOOT!).
that and your previous responses are the evidence that leads me to the conclusions i stated above. you state that you lack the education to attack the actual published study yet you attack the validity of the study based on the opinion of a representative of the spongbob show, who is no more a scientist than you or i? throughout this discussion your attacks have been all over the the place with no substance to back them. mistake after mistake after mistake in spite of the clues and evidence that i posted to guide you to a more reasonable and educated opinion. not only that but you have yet to present any scientific evidence that contradicts not only the news article but the study itself. don't bother looking, i already did and the study is new enough no one has had the opportunity to conduct any research that contradicts the conclusions.
the title of the study is - IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TELEVISION ON YOUNG CHILDRENS EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
the study does not say, that is to say not, as in it does not even hint to the conclusion - spongebob makes kids stupid
here is the link to the published study in pdf format:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf+html?sid=c569ca32-04f9-4066-8755-274c692fdcec (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf+html?sid=c569ca32-04f9-4066-8755-274c692fdcec)
By the way, I think Simaril make a very interesting point about the fallacy of arguing that correlation implies causation, and how the increased television viewing may be the result of the attention problems, and not the other way around. Read it below:
To conclude, you missed my point entirely, and now complain that I restate it.
-Penguin
if you have a point other than spongebob does not make kids stupid, please enlighten me. as to simarils point i believe you misinterpreted it. however, as to how simarils point relates to the actual study conducted by dr. lillard, it doesn't. once you read the actual study you will see it. in as far as the results of the study go, there was a definitive correlation between 9 minutes of spongebob being the cause of a measurable short term loss of executive function in the pre-school aged children that were studied. there were three groups of children from middle class and upper middle class homes that did one of three things, read books, watched public broadcasting system programs and watched episodes of spongebob squarpants. as to your argument that the study groups were not diverse enough would only be valid if the study actually made the conclusions that you believed the authors were making. keep in mind that statistically, low income households may not have access to the channel that spongebob squarepants is broadcast on due to financial constraints, not to mention the myriad health and behavioral issues experienced by the children in low income households. on the flip side, rich people tend to ban their children from watching such programming and generally have assistance in the form of nannies to raise thier children with strict guidelines.
*edit* thinking back to your argument that dr. lillard is not an expert or the only expert in her field in spite of her credentials, it just dawned on me that i have been erroneously making the assumption that you know medical and scientific research studies are subject to peer review prior to publication. that means, other people in the field of psychology reviewed the research prior to it being published and, the fact that it was published shows that those who were part of the peer review found no fault in it.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/
i guess its finally been proven, if your stupid, you should blame spongebob. :D
suprised no one caught these.
A) "you're"
B) Fox News
:noid
-
snip
if you have a point other than spongebob does not make kids stupid, please enlighten me. as to simarils point i believe you misinterpreted it. however, as to how simarils point relates to the actual study conducted by dr. lillard, it doesn't. once you read the actual study you will see it. in as far as the results of the study go, there was a definitive correlation between 9 minutes of spongebob being the cause of a measurable short term loss of executive function in the pre-school aged children that were studied.
snip
OK, with that study design the interpretive mistake is called "overgeneralization." What this study actually shows is that watching kids' TV immediately before taking a test reduces test scores. THAT'S IT. The study cannot be honestly used to say that TV reduces academic performance in general, or that it reduces long term achievement or intelligence. It simply doesn't ask those questions, and if one tries to use it to address those questions then one is being either dishonest, demagogic, or silly.
The results are on the level of "get a good night's sleep and have a good breakfast before you take your SATs". Add to that list "and don't watch SpongeBob in the 10 minutes before you sit down with your sharpened #2s".
:aok
-
snipsnip
OK, with that study design the interpretive mistake is called "overgeneralization." What this study actually shows is that watching kids' TV immediately before taking a test reduces test scores. THAT'S IT. The study cannot be honestly used to say that TV reduces academic performance in general, or that it reduces long term achievement or intelligence. It simply doesn't ask those questions, and if one tries to use it to address those questions then one is being either dishonest, demagogic, or silly.
The results are on the level of "get a good night's sleep and have a good breakfast before you take your SATs". Add to that list "and don't watch SpongeBob in the 10 minutes before you sit down with your sharpened #2s".
:aok
overgeneralization? that would be a stretch, maybe a simple generalization based on the time span and demographics of the test subjects but not overgeneralization. how much executive function can 4 year old children have in the first place? obviously they have some or there wouldn't have been a measurable difference. otherwise i would have to agree with you. the fact that the study was not a long term project spanning several several ages or consider physiological influences to measure what if any long term effects there would be to basic executive functionality does prevent it from being used as a concrete determination that extended exposure to programs like spongebob is detrimental to childrens mental functions.
-
Think I'll go with the PhD and not the pompous prig.
-
I was going to reply to this thread, but I was watching Spongebob, and became too stupid to make an intelligent reply :headscratch: "did someone say Icecream? :x"
:salute
BigRat
-
CHOCOLATE?!?!?!
-
Sometimes when my kids watch spongebob I have to sit down with them and laugh with it. It's so dumb that it really is funny :D
In small doses.
-
i wonder what effects family guy has? king of the hill had an effect, i would talk with a texas accent for a couple of hours after watching that show. and i'm not from texas. :headscratch:
-
Nightly beatings cure all things. ;)
-
My original argument was that the study was not substantial enough to warrant such a sensational title.
That wasn't your original point at all. Your original point was this:
What kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results? This is a perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor.
I dunno about you, but it seems like those two ideas differ.
I'm going to guess you've never actually written anything for academic journals before, Penguin. Different types of studies warrant different levels of scrutiny. In this case, it appears that the authors have begun exploring an area of childhood psychology previously ignored - namely, they're arguing that the content of what children watch on television matters as much or more than the amount of exposure. That's kind of a new and interesting take on the subject matter, so most peer reviewers will grant them some leeway in terms of methodology because these results are understood to be preliminary. In other words, they're a jumping off point for future research and not meant to represent the end-all comprehensive examination.
As well, the authors readily acknowledge the methodological flaws. It would be intellectually dishonest to have done otherwise, but nonetheless the results prove compelling enough to merit publication and further examination.
Also, questioning the academic credentials of the authors is a big stretch. These authors don't publish themselves - they appeared in a peer reviewed journal. I've worked for a peer reviewed journal before, and one of the editor's primary jobs is to match reviewers to articles. That is, if the journal receives a submission on media and its effects on developmental psychology, the editor sends that article out to three or more experts on the subject matter for their feedback (via a double blind system). That article didn't get published without going through the academic ringer. I guarantee it.
-
suprised no one caught these.
A) "you're"
B) Fox News
:noid
where the hell did the "Fox News" come from? its in the link and i cant really change it...
as for the "you're" i really dont care. this is getting kind of funny watching penguin and gyrene bite each other :lol
-
as for the "you're" i really dont care. this is getting kind of funny watching penguin and gyrene bite each other :lol
see what you started stanley? :rofl you would think that as many times as penguin has stepped in the doodoo, he would have learned some things by now.
-
see what you started stanley? :rofl you would think that as many times as penguin has stepped in the doodoo, he would have learned some things by now.
:rofl
-
Ok I agree with the study, I believe that just talking about sponge bob square pants has reduced adults and soon to be adults to absolute blithering lunatics. :bolt:
-
Ok I agree with the study, I believe that just talking about sponge bob square pants has reduced adults and soon to be adults to absolute blithering lunatics. :bolt:
agreed. the stupidest topics bring out the stupid in people. im not suprised really.
-
:lol not only have you still not read the actual published study but you are now attempting to deny your own words. you attack the study and it's authors repeatedly, yet you claim not to agree or disagree with the conclusions of the study. i can't even imagine how that works. obviously you didn't actually read my last response or the other news articles either, but you did key in on a word that i used (i.e. sensationalized). the study does not have a sensational title, nor does it make a sensational claim, never did. you associated the title that the original poster used and the title of the original news article with what you believed to be the claims made by the study, then based your entire debate solely on that and the erroneous notion that it was a flawed clinical trial. your entire argument has been guided not by facts or actual knowledge but by your knee jerk reaction to what you view as a preposterous notion.
that and your previous responses are the evidence that leads me to the conclusions i stated above. you state that you lack the education to attack the actual published study yet you attack the validity of the study based on the opinion of a representative of the spongbob show, who is no more a scientist than you or i? throughout this discussion your attacks have been all over the the place with no substance to back them. mistake after mistake after mistake in spite of the clues and evidence that i posted to guide you to a more reasonable and educated opinion. not only that but you have yet to present any scientific evidence that contradicts not only the news article but the study itself. don't bother looking, i already did and the study is new enough no one has had the opportunity to conduct any research that contradicts the conclusions.
the title of the study is - IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TELEVISION ON YOUNG CHILDRENS EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
the study does not say, that is to say not, as in it does not even hint to the conclusion - spongebob makes kids stupid
here is the link to the published study in pdf format:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf+html?sid=c569ca32-04f9-4066-8755-274c692fdcec (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf+html?sid=c569ca32-04f9-4066-8755-274c692fdcec)
if you have a point other than spongebob does not make kids stupid, please enlighten me. as to simarils point i believe you misinterpreted it. however, as to how simarils point relates to the actual study conducted by dr. lillard, it doesn't. once you read the actual study you will see it. in as far as the results of the study go, there was a definitive correlation between 9 minutes of spongebob being the cause of a measurable short term loss of executive function in the pre-school aged children that were studied. there were three groups of children from middle class and upper middle class homes that did one of three things, read books, watched public broadcasting system programs and watched episodes of spongebob squarpants. as to your argument that the study groups were not diverse enough would only be valid if the study actually made the conclusions that you believed the authors were making. keep in mind that statistically, low income households may not have access to the channel that spongebob squarepants is broadcast on due to financial constraints, not to mention the myriad health and behavioral issues experienced by the children in low income households. on the flip side, rich people tend to ban their children from watching such programming and generally have assistance in the form of nannies to raise thier children with strict guidelines.
*edit* thinking back to your argument that dr. lillard is not an expert or the only expert in her field in spite of her credentials, it just dawned on me that i have been erroneously making the assumption that you know medical and scientific research studies are subject to peer review prior to publication. that means, other people in the field of psychology reviewed the research prior to it being published and, the fact that it was published shows that those who were part of the peer review found no fault in it.
I messed up badly with the attacks on its methodology. They were poorly constructed and I kept referencing the wrong article (see http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/). I must have been unwilling to admit that I was wrong, and selectively read it. That was a big mistake. So close, but yet so far. Well played, Gyrene. :cheers:
Attacks on credentials? Hardly. I said that Christakis was well qualified to make the commentary and that Lillard was also well qualified (though it had been a long time since she had studied the effects of television, and her opinion would be better used elsewhere). The comment 'what kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results?' was apt- Mr. Christakis was not that kind of physician. In fact, I said that he was well respected, Why would such a respected psychologist...
I did take a cheap shot with that last sentence, though.
I should have thought about the peer-review process earlier, though. It sets my mind at ease knowing that an independent body reviewed it before release. However, good study, bad study, or in between study, for shame, FOX news! My comment on the perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor still stands. The author of the news article used a misleading title, and the overall presentation alluded to there being a connection between fast-paced programming and learning problems.
To that end, the author compeletly misused the study. It had nothing to do with "learning difficulties"- it was a study of executive function. It would be a stretch to say that a child with temporarily impaired executive function had "learning difficulties". It might have trouble not cracking a joke or doing its classwork for a while, but there needs to be further research to find if the effects last any longer.
-Penguin
-
Back when Discovery Channel was a quality channel, they would show movies about animals and and the planet we live on.
My youngest loved the informative shows. She would surprise everyone with her knowledge of animals and such.
She was nominated for G.A.T.E. in her second week of kindergarden. We went to a meeting and decided to let her try it. She tested and was accepted. She was successful and stayed in that till 6th grade where it ends and she started AP classes. In 6th grade she was testing on a 9th grade level and took her first S.A.T. where she scored higher than 80 some odd percent of the college bound seniors in high school. She took her second S.A.T. in 8th grade and did even better. She is now in her third year at A&M University and doing very well.
I can say that the things she watched on TV helped her advance more rapidly.
I might add that she was reading by the age of 2. She was deep into my library while in Elementary.
-
overgeneralization? that would be a stretch, maybe a simple generalization
For what it's worth, "overgeneralization" is a technical term, not an opinion.
"Generalization" means taking results from a study and "generalizing" them to a larger population. "Overgeneralization" means applying the results to populations or situations which do NOT apply.
This distinction can easily be understood with a quick trip to Dictionary.com. As a general tip, might find your opinions taken more seriously if you put some effort into forming them.
-
For what it's worth, "overgeneralization" is a technical term, not an opinion.
"Generalization" means taking results from a study and "generalizing" them to a larger population. "Overgeneralization" means applying the results to populations or situations which do NOT apply.
This distinction can easily be understood with a quick trip to Dictionary.com. As a general tip, might find your opinions taken more seriously if you put some effort into forming them.
alrighty then. in that case, if you were referring to the way the posted news article and others like it were written, i would have to agree.
fyi, dictionary.com would not have made a difference as i had misunderstood what you were referencing. i made the assumption that you were talking specifically about the conclusions of the study itself, not how they were being interpreted.
OK, with that study design the interpretive mistake is called "overgeneralization."
-
<snippity> <snip> <snip>
-Penguin
:lol geez it took you long enough to figure all that out. you came out swinging in the wrong direction and just kept flailing away in spite of people trying to turn you in the right direction. :lol
i have to wonder though, would you have taken so long to see the light if i had made it easy and given you the full information earlier? :headscratch: :D nah, it was more fun pushing you to get the real facts on your own, almost like the dust bowl/buffalo debate. that was a good one.
-
:lol geez it took you long enough to figure all that out. you came out swinging in the wrong direction and just kept flailing away in spite of people trying to turn you in the right direction. :lol
i have to wonder though, would you have taken so long to see the light if i had made it easy and given you the full information earlier? :headscratch: :D nah, it was more fun pushing you to get the real facts on your own, almost like the dust bowl/buffalo debate. that was a good one.
I hope I remember to look things up first before opening my mouth. It's fun to talk, but it's no fun to be wrong. Now I just need to wait for someone else to make that mistake.
Good game,
-Penguin
-
WTG Gyrene.